Abhishek Borana vs Uco Bank (2025:Rj-Jd:49957)
2025 Latest Caselaw 15699 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Abhishek Borana vs Uco Bank (2025:Rj-Jd:49957) on 19 November, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:49957]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 65/2024

1.       Abhishek Borana S/o Shri Ramlal Borana, Aged About 39
         Years, R/o Sukh Sagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Ratanada,
         Jodhpur.

2.       Ramlal Borana S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Borana, Aged About
         70 Years, R/o Sukh Sagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Ratanada,
         Jodhpur.

                                                                   ----Appellants

                                    Versus

1.       Uco Bank, Through Its General Manager, Corporate Head
         Office- 10, Btm Sarni, Kolkata, West Bengal.

2.       Uco Bank, Through Its Zonal Manager, Zonal Office- Pal
         Link Road, Jodhpur, Raj.

3.       Uco, Through Its Senior Manager, Branch Boranada,
         Jodhpur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Manish Patel
                                Ms. Jyoti R. Patel
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Abhinav Jain



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

19/11/2025

1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs

against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2023 passed by the

learned Additional District Judge No.7, Jodhpur Metropolitan in

Appeal Decree No.19/2023 (NCV No.47/2023), whereby the

judgment and decree dated 30.09.2023 passed by the learned

(Uploaded on 19/11/2025 at 05:21:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49957] (2 of 3) [CSA-65/2024]

Civil Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Original Case

No.336/2018 (Abhishek Borana & Anr. vs. UCO Bank & Ors.) has

been affirmed and the appeal preferred by the appellants-

plaintiffs has been dismissed.

2. The facts, in nutshell, necessary for deciding the present

appeal are that the appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit for possession

and compensation in respect of the suit property, inter alia, on the

ground that UCO Bank, through its Manager, had taken the

property on lease by executing a lease deed for a period of fifteen

years. Upon expiry of the lease period, the appellants-plaintiffs

served a legal notice upon the defendants calling upon them to

vacate the rented premises, but the defendants failed to do so.

The appellants-plaintiffs further claimed entitlement to

compensation by way of mesne profits.

3. It is not in dispute before this Court that the rented premises

has already been vacated by the defendants. The learned trial

Court as well as the first Appellate Court, on the basis of the oral

and documentary evidence available on record, arrived at a

definite finding that no document had been placed on record to

establish that any agreement existed between the parties for

enhancement of rent or fixation of increased rent.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the material available on record, this Court does not

find any perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the

Courts below. Thus, there is no reason to interfere with the

impugned judgments and decrees, particularly because no

question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises for

consideration in this second appeal.

(Uploaded on 19/11/2025 at 05:21:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:49957] (3 of 3) [CSA-65/2024]

5. Accordingly, the present second appeal stands dismissed.

6. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 29-divya/-

(Uploaded on 19/11/2025 at 05:21:06 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)